G85 Fuel

On 10/14/2010 07:18 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> The EPA is considering 15% ethanol in gasoline up from 10% ethanol for
>> car years 2007 and newer...
>>
>> Well, ethanol is corrosive, has less octane than gasoline, gets less
>> fuel mileage than gasoline, and likely would only be an efficient fuel
>> in an engine with a different operating temperature than current cars.
>> The real purpose of ethanol is to increase oxygen in winter gasoline
>> for a minor pollution benefit while ethanol is dubious in summer
>> gasoline because of the evaporation rate of ethanol.
>>
>> Also, I think that ethanol makes policy-makers dizzy when they get too
>> close to it.
>
> Actually Ethanol has higher octane that gasoline.

oh, for pete's sake ed, don't you ever learn anything? we've been
around this mulberry bush before. octane rating has nothing to do with
calorie content. it's calorie content that gets you mpg's, not octane
rating. because of its lower energy content, or calories, higher
ethanol means lower mpg's, thus you have to buy more of it to get where
you're going. and of course, you're paying more for it at the pump.
and it can mess with your car. a thoroughly bad deal. unless you're an
oil company or a farmer. or a large agricultural concern that's
cornered the market. or a politician that panders to the above.


>
> But still this seems like a bad idea. The was I heard it on the radio
> yesterday, the EPA is goign to premit E85 for use in 2007 and newer cars.
> But this means stations will need to create a new category of fuel
> specifically for newer cars. How many stations are going to want to add
> another product line? How many people will accidentally add E85 to an older
> car that can be damaged by it? How long before E10 disappears? I keep
> looking for stations that sell "pure" gasoline in my area and can't find any
> that make the claim. NC used to require pumps to be labeled if the fuel
> included Ethanol - but not any more. So will we end up with E85 pumps with
> label that say for 2007 and newer cars only? And how long before the labels
> dissappear?

rhetorically speaking of course...


>
> Ed
>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Fill 'er up with E15: EPA OKs more ethanol [How's that price of corn
doing???] http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=297075
cuhulin

"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
...

> So in total I do not see it as a big thing. I have a 2009 Prius. If the
> 15% gasohol is cheaper than the 10% I'll run it.

How much cheaper does it need to be? My fuel economy has gone down
significantly in the last couple of years. I blame this in part on the fact
that "pure" gasoline has completely disappeared from stations in my area.
The decrease seems to be more than the 3% to 5% decrease in economy claimed
by the EPA. I suspect this is becasue the E10 is absorbing significant
amounts of water. Becasue ethanol absorbs water, I suspect I am really
getting something like 89.55% gasoline, 9.95% ethanol and 0.5% water (or
worse). So now not only is the energy content reduced by a little bit more,
the actual heating value of the fuel is reduce by even more (because of the
presence of water). In my mind, I would pay at least 4% more for "pure"
gasoline compared to E10 ($2.75 for pure gasoline vs $2.64 for E10). I
assume in the case of E15, I'd have to see the E15 cost at least 6% less
than "pure" gasoline ($2.75 for pure gasoline, $2.59 for E15). I doubt you
will see this large a delta. In fact, my experience is there is no delta at
all. When stations in my area switched to E10, the prices didn't go down. In
fact some stations selling pure gasoline were selling gasoline for less than
other stations were selling E10. Now there are no station selling "pure"
gasoline (at elast that I can find in my area).

Ed

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/14/2010 07:18 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The EPA is considering 15% ethanol in gasoline up from 10% ethanol for
>>> car years 2007 and newer...
>>>
>>> Well, ethanol is corrosive, has less octane than gasoline, gets less
>>> fuel mileage than gasoline, and likely would only be an efficient fuel
>>> in an engine with a different operating temperature than current cars.
>>> The real purpose of ethanol is to increase oxygen in winter gasoline
>>> for a minor pollution benefit while ethanol is dubious in summer
>>> gasoline because of the evaporation rate of ethanol.
>>>
>>> Also, I think that ethanol makes policy-makers dizzy when they get too
>>> close to it.
>>
>> Actually Ethanol has higher octane that gasoline.
>
> oh, for pete's sake ed, don't you ever learn anything? we've been around
> this mulberry bush before. octane rating has nothing to do with calorie
> content. it's calorie content that gets you mpg's, not octane rating.
> because of its lower energy content, or calories, higher ethanol means
> lower mpg's, thus you have to buy more of it to get where you're going.
> and of course, you're paying more for it at the pump. and it can mess with
> your car. a thoroughly bad deal. unless you're an oil company or a
> farmer. or a large agricultural concern that's cornered the market. or a
> politician that panders to the above.

Exactly whn have I ever claimed that octane rating had something to do with
calorie rating (i.e., energy content)? I was merely pointing out that the OP
was wrong when he said ethanol had a lower octane rating than gasoline.

If you have an engine that can adjust engine parameters based on fuel
octane, then it is possible that the engine could actually take advantage of
the higher octane of ethanol and at least partially compensate for the lower
energy content of ethanol. HOWEVER, E10 is a blend of gasoline and ethanol,
and the octane rating of the combination is what matters, not the octane
rating of ethanol alone. My understanding is that companies blending ethaol
and gasoline are taking advantage of the higher octane rating of the ethanol
by using lower octane rated gasoline and coming up with an overall octane
rating that meets the minimum requirements for the grade (i.e., the regular
E10 blend has the same octane rating as regular grade"pure" gasoline of the
same grade). If companies blended ethanol with gasoline with the orignal
octane rating of regular gasoline, then the resulting blend would have a
higher octane rating, but since they are not doing this, there is no
"octane" advantage for regular grade E10 compared to "regualr" pure
gasoline. So since the octane rating of E10 is not higher than pure
gasoline, you can't count on any compensatory benefits assocaiated with
higher octane rating of ethanol.

Ed

On 10/14/2010 07:54 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "Don > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So in total I do not see it as a big thing. I have a 2009 Prius. If the
>> 15% gasohol is cheaper than the 10% I'll run it.
>
> How much cheaper does it need to be? My fuel economy has gone down
> significantly in the last couple of years. I blame this in part on the fact
> that "pure" gasoline has completely disappeared from stations in my area.
> The decrease seems to be more than the 3% to 5% decrease in economy claimed
> by the EPA. I suspect this is becasue the E10 is absorbing significant
> amounts of water. Becasue ethanol absorbs water, I suspect I am really
> getting something like 89.55% gasoline, 9.95% ethanol and 0.5% water (or
> worse). So now not only is the energy content reduced by a little bit more,
> the actual heating value of the fuel is reduce by even more (because of the
> presence of water).

oh, ed, energy content and heating value are the same thing.


> In my mind, I would pay at least 4% more for "pure"
> gasoline compared to E10 ($2.75 for pure gasoline vs $2.64 for E10). I
> assume in the case of E15, I'd have to see the E15 cost at least 6% less
> than "pure" gasoline ($2.75 for pure gasoline, $2.59 for E15). I doubt you
> will see this large a delta. In fact, my experience is there is no delta at
> all. When stations in my area switched to E10, the prices didn't go down. In
> fact some stations selling pure gasoline were selling gasoline for less than
> other stations were selling E10. Now there are no station selling "pure"
> gasoline (at elast that I can find in my area).

gasoline should be sold by energy content, not volume. just like the
natural gas that's piped into homes. as long as it's sold by volume,
there is the opportunity to sell "volumized" crap, just like bars will
sell watered-down drinks.

there used to be a link on the api's website
http://api-ec.api.org/about//index.c...02001000000000
[now dead]

where they flat-out admitted that ethanol was used as a "volumizer" -
their word, not mine.

there is no legal minimum for energy content of gasoline - another
problem. on the one hand, if there were one, it would get lobbied so
low it would be a joke. on the other, it would draw a line in the sand
and stop this ridiculous rip-off.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 10/14/2010 08:11 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/14/2010 07:18 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> The EPA is considering 15% ethanol in gasoline up from 10% ethanol for
>>>> car years 2007 and newer...
>>>>
>>>> Well, ethanol is corrosive, has less octane than gasoline, gets less
>>>> fuel mileage than gasoline, and likely would only be an efficient fuel
>>>> in an engine with a different operating temperature than current cars.
>>>> The real purpose of ethanol is to increase oxygen in winter gasoline
>>>> for a minor pollution benefit while ethanol is dubious in summer
>>>> gasoline because of the evaporation rate of ethanol.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I think that ethanol makes policy-makers dizzy when they get too
>>>> close to it.
>>>
>>> Actually Ethanol has higher octane that gasoline.
>>
>> oh, for pete's sake ed, don't you ever learn anything? we've been around
>> this mulberry bush before. octane rating has nothing to do with calorie
>> content. it's calorie content that gets you mpg's, not octane rating.
>> because of its lower energy content, or calories, higher ethanol means
>> lower mpg's, thus you have to buy more of it to get where you're going.
>> and of course, you're paying more for it at the pump. and it can mess with
>> your car. a thoroughly bad deal. unless you're an oil company or a
>> farmer. or a large agricultural concern that's cornered the market. or a
>> politician that panders to the above.
>
> Exactly whn have I ever claimed that octane rating had something to do with
> calorie rating (i.e., energy content)? I was merely pointing out that the OP
> was wrong when he said ethanol had a lower octane rating than gasoline.
>
> If you have an engine that can adjust engine parameters based on fuel
> octane, then it is possible that the engine could actually take advantage of
> the higher octane of ethanol and at least partially compensate for the lower
> energy content of ethanol. HOWEVER, E10 is a blend of gasoline and ethanol,
> and the octane rating of the combination is what matters, not the octane
> rating of ethanol alone. My understanding is that companies blending ethaol
> and gasoline are taking advantage of the higher octane rating of the ethanol
> by using lower octane rated gasoline and coming up with an overall octane
> rating that meets the minimum requirements for the grade (i.e., the regular
> E10 blend has the same octane rating as regular grade"pure" gasoline of the
> same grade). If companies blended ethanol with gasoline with the orignal
> octane rating of regular gasoline, then the resulting blend would have a
> higher octane rating, but since they are not doing this, there is no
> "octane" advantage for regular grade E10 compared to "regualr" pure
> gasoline. So since the octane rating of E10 is not higher than pure
> gasoline, you can't count on any compensatory benefits assocaiated with
> higher octane rating of ethanol.
>
> Ed
>
>

ed, you're still blathering in a confused way about this. "octane" is
an arbitrary measure of pre-combustion resistance. it's not energy
content or heating value. thus, you can have high octane gas with
minimal energy, and low octane gas with high energy. simple.

but you are right that the higher ethanol content is allowing the oil
companies to blend crappier lower energy content fractions into gas that
meets the octane ratings. that's why you're seeing lower mpg's than
ethanol content would predict. 10% ethanol would predict roughly 5%
lower mpg's, but what we're observing is roughly 10% lower mpg's.

it's been the same with diesel. when the new low-sulfur regulations
were first discussed, there was a brief flurry of complaint from the
oilco's about their increased refining costs. but that suddenly and
miraculously died, and there has been deafening silence ever since.
why? because this "new" low sulfur diesel has 5% lower calorie content
than before. why exactly diesel's calorie content has to drop just
because crud is removed is something no chemist will be able to tell you...


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

> wrote in message
...
> Fill 'er up with E15: EPA OKs more ethanol [How's that price of corn
> doing???] http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=297075
> cuhulin

Overseas demand and the relatively weak dollar have more to do with rising
corn prices than ethanol production. Adjusted for inflation, corn prices are
almost back to the levels of the 70's. To bad the prices for all the inputs
(fertilizer, equipment, fuel, labor) have increased well beyond the prices
of the '70's even when adjsuted for inflation.

I have raised corn all my life. I lost by butt on corn this year (drought
cut the yeilds greatly). I plan to plant half as much next year. In my area
the real money these days is in soybeans and cotton. The prices for both of
those have increased at a much greater rate than corn recently.

One interesting aside - a company in Hopewell, Va has been sending out
letter to local farmers encouraging them to grow barely to be used to make
ethanol. They are offering a contract price for any barley you are willing
to raise. I've never grown barely but have grown wheat and oats. In my area
small grains like these are planted in the fall (now till mid-November) and
harvested in June/July. After harvesting the small grain, we generally plant
soybeans on the same land for harvest in October/November. The later palnted
soybeans yeild almost as well as soybenas planted in May, so this can be an
attractive proposition (two crops on the same acerage). I considered
planting barelyy for this company, but in the end decided against it, since
I was already committed to planting oats on the suitable land (I use oats
and oat hay for cattle feed).

Ed

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/14/2010 07:54 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> "Don > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> So in total I do not see it as a big thing. I have a 2009 Prius. If the
>>> 15% gasohol is cheaper than the 10% I'll run it.
>>
>> How much cheaper does it need to be? My fuel economy has gone down
>> significantly in the last couple of years. I blame this in part on the
>> fact
>> that "pure" gasoline has completely disappeared from stations in my area.
>> The decrease seems to be more than the 3% to 5% decrease in economy
>> claimed
>> by the EPA. I suspect this is becasue the E10 is absorbing significant
>> amounts of water. Becasue ethanol absorbs water, I suspect I am really
>> getting something like 89.55% gasoline, 9.95% ethanol and 0.5% water (or
>> worse). So now not only is the energy content reduced by a little bit
>> more,
>> the actual heating value of the fuel is reduce by even more (because of
>> the
>> presence of water).
>
> oh, ed, energy content and heating value are the same thing.

Actually they are not. Look it up. There are subtle differences among the
terms gross energy content, net energy content, caloriffic value, lower
heating value, higher heating value, gross heating value, etc.

In this case I was talking about how the presence of water not only lowers
the total energy content of the fuel (ethanol plus gasoline plus water)
becasue the water in the mixture provides no energy, but it also resutls in
a decrease in the lower heating value of the fuel, since part of the energy
in the gasoline and ethanol must be used to vaporize the entrained water
during the combustion process. If you have an engine that has problems with
pre-ignition, adding a little water might be OK, but for most of us boiling
off any moisture inadvertenly included in the E10 is just wasting energy.


> > In my mind, I would pay at least 4% more for "pure"
>> gasoline compared to E10 ($2.75 for pure gasoline vs $2.64 for E10). I
>> assume in the case of E15, I'd have to see the E15 cost at least 6% less
>> than "pure" gasoline ($2.75 for pure gasoline, $2.59 for E15). I doubt
>> you
>> will see this large a delta. In fact, my experience is there is no delta
>> at
>> all. When stations in my area switched to E10, the prices didn't go down.
>> In
>> fact some stations selling pure gasoline were selling gasoline for less
>> than
>> other stations were selling E10. Now there are no station selling "pure"
>> gasoline (at elast that I can find in my area).
>
> gasoline should be sold by energy content, not volume. just like the
> natural gas that's piped into homes. as long as it's sold by volume,
> there is the opportunity to sell "volumized" crap, just like bars will
> sell watered-down drinks.

In theroy this sounds like a good idea, but I am not sure how it would work
in practice. Would you vary the price of a gallon of gas based on the energy
content, or have some sort of caluclating pump that displays a price in
BTU's per dollar?

Al though I have noticed a general decline in my fuel economy, I don't see a
lot of tank to tank variation. Years ago I tried figuring out if one brand
of gas was better than another. For a months I'd only buy brand x and then
switch to brand y for a month then back to brand X. I did this for a year. I
could tell no difference in fuel economy between brands for the period.
Recently I started comparing gas mileage for fuel purchased near my farm
(most of which is trucked in from the Tidewater, Va area which has a BP
Refinery) to gas purchased in the Raleigh area (most of which comes up a
pipeline from god know where in the southwest). For a period of time I was
convinced that I got better fuel economy using the gas from my farm. Now, I
don't see that. It might have been a figment of my imagination, since at
most the difference was on the order of 0.2 mpg.

Ed

>
> there used to be a link on the api's website
> http://api-ec.api.org/about//index.c...02001000000000
> [now dead]
>
> where they flat-out admitted that ethanol was used as a "volumizer" -
> their word, not mine.
>
> there is no legal minimum for energy content of gasoline - another
> problem. on the one hand, if there were one, it would get lobbied so low
> it would be a joke. on the other, it would draw a line in the sand and
> stop this ridiculous rip-off.
>
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> On 10/14/2010 08:11 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> "jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 10/14/2010 07:18 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> The EPA is considering 15% ethanol in gasoline up from 10% ethanol for
>>>>> car years 2007 and newer...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, ethanol is corrosive, has less octane than gasoline, gets less
>>>>> fuel mileage than gasoline, and likely would only be an efficient fuel
>>>>> in an engine with a different operating temperature than current cars.
>>>>> The real purpose of ethanol is to increase oxygen in winter gasoline
>>>>> for a minor pollution benefit while ethanol is dubious in summer
>>>>> gasoline because of the evaporation rate of ethanol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think that ethanol makes policy-makers dizzy when they get too
>>>>> close to it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually Ethanol has higher octane that gasoline.
>>>
>>> oh, for pete's sake ed, don't you ever learn anything? we've been
>>> around
>>> this mulberry bush before. octane rating has nothing to do with calorie
>>> content. it's calorie content that gets you mpg's, not octane rating.
>>> because of its lower energy content, or calories, higher ethanol means
>>> lower mpg's, thus you have to buy more of it to get where you're going.
>>> and of course, you're paying more for it at the pump. and it can mess
>>> with
>>> your car. a thoroughly bad deal. unless you're an oil company or a
>>> farmer. or a large agricultural concern that's cornered the market. or
>>> a
>>> politician that panders to the above.
>>
>> Exactly whn have I ever claimed that octane rating had something to do
>> with
>> calorie rating (i.e., energy content)? I was merely pointing out that the
>> OP
>> was wrong when he said ethanol had a lower octane rating than gasoline.
>>
>> If you have an engine that can adjust engine parameters based on fuel
>> octane, then it is possible that the engine could actually take advantage
>> of
>> the higher octane of ethanol and at least partially compensate for the
>> lower
>> energy content of ethanol. HOWEVER, E10 is a blend of gasoline and
>> ethanol,
>> and the octane rating of the combination is what matters, not the octane
>> rating of ethanol alone. My understanding is that companies blending
>> ethaol
>> and gasoline are taking advantage of the higher octane rating of the
>> ethanol
>> by using lower octane rated gasoline and coming up with an overall octane
>> rating that meets the minimum requirements for the grade (i.e., the
>> regular
>> E10 blend has the same octane rating as regular grade"pure" gasoline of
>> the
>> same grade). If companies blended ethanol with gasoline with the orignal
>> octane rating of regular gasoline, then the resulting blend would have a
>> higher octane rating, but since they are not doing this, there is no
>> "octane" advantage for regular grade E10 compared to "regualr" pure
>> gasoline. So since the octane rating of E10 is not higher than pure
>> gasoline, you can't count on any compensatory benefits assocaiated with
>> higher octane rating of ethanol.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
> ed, you're still blathering in a confused way about this. "octane" is an
> arbitrary measure of pre-combustion resistance. it's not energy content
> or heating value. thus, you can have high octane gas with minimal energy,
> and low octane gas with high energy. simple.

I never said otherwise. In theory, if you blended ethanol with "regular"
gasoline that already met the octane requirements for "real regular"
gasoline, the blend would have a higher octane rating. If you have a vehicle
that can adjust engine parameters to take advantage of the higher octane,
then you might increase the overal engine efficiency slightly, thus slightly
offsetting the decreased energy content of the blend. However, I think we
both agree that oil companies are actually using lower octance gasoline to
blend with the ethanol thereby eliminting any possible increase in
efficiency thast might have been available if the ethanol had been blended
with real regular gasoline.

> but you are right that the higher ethanol content is allowing the oil
> companies to blend crappier lower energy content fractions into gas that
> meets the octane ratings. that's why you're seeing lower mpg's than
> ethanol content would predict. 10% ethanol would predict roughly 5% lower
> mpg's, but what we're observing is roughly 10% lower mpg's.

In theory the reduction in energy contnet should only be on the order of
3.5% (Ethanol has roughly 65% as much energy as regualr gasoline). My
reduction in fuel economy has been around 5%, not 10%. But then I have a
realtively new fuel injected car (and truck). I am sure it would be much
worse for an older car. I'd actually like to find a station still selling
pure gasoline for a comparison. I have searched in vain for such a station
in a convient location. I hear rumors of stations near the coast that
advertise ethanol free gasoline, but have yet to actually see one.

Ed

> it's been the same with diesel. when the new low-sulfur regulations were
> first discussed, there was a brief flurry of complaint from the oilco's
> about their increased refining costs. but that suddenly and miraculously
> died, and there has been deafening silence ever since. why? because this
> "new" low sulfur diesel has 5% lower calorie content than before. why
> exactly diesel's calorie content has to drop just because crud is removed
> is something no chemist will be able to tell you...
>
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum

On 10/14/2010 09:40 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/14/2010 07:54 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> "Don > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> So in total I do not see it as a big thing. I have a 2009 Prius. If the
>>>> 15% gasohol is cheaper than the 10% I'll run it.
>>>
>>> How much cheaper does it need to be? My fuel economy has gone down
>>> significantly in the last couple of years. I blame this in part on the
>>> fact
>>> that "pure" gasoline has completely disappeared from stations in my area.
>>> The decrease seems to be more than the 3% to 5% decrease in economy
>>> claimed
>>> by the EPA. I suspect this is becasue the E10 is absorbing significant
>>> amounts of water. Becasue ethanol absorbs water, I suspect I am really
>>> getting something like 89.55% gasoline, 9.95% ethanol and 0.5% water (or
>>> worse). So now not only is the energy content reduced by a little bit
>>> more,
>>> the actual heating value of the fuel is reduce by even more (because of
>>> the
>>> presence of water).
>>
>> oh, ed, energy content and heating value are the same thing.
>
> Actually they are not. Look it up. There are subtle differences among the
> terms gross energy content, net energy content, caloriffic value, lower
> heating value, higher heating value, gross heating value, etc.

i don't know where you think you're "looking this up" ed, but it sure
isn't anything scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorific_value




>
> In this case I was talking about how the presence of water not only lowers
> the total energy content of the fuel (ethanol plus gasoline plus water)
> becasue the water in the mixture provides no energy, but it also resutls in
> a decrease in the lower heating value of the fuel,

er, same thing ed. why don't you stick to lobbying and astroturfing?
this-here durned sciencey stuff has you tied in knots.


> since part of the energy
> in the gasoline and ethanol must be used to vaporize the entrained water
> during the combustion process.

no ed, the energy content is reduced on a percentage basis because water
does not yield calories.


> If you have an engine that has problems with
> pre-ignition, adding a little water might be OK, but for most of us boiling
> off any moisture inadvertenly included in the E10 is just wasting energy.

it's not "boiling off" ed - this is not a separate phase. it's a small
[tiny] fraction of *dissolved* Hâ‚‚O. much like there a small [tiny]
fraction of dissolved Nâ‚‚, COâ‚‚, etc.


>
>
>>> In my mind, I would pay at least 4% more for "pure"
>>> gasoline compared to E10 ($2.75 for pure gasoline vs $2.64 for E10). I
>>> assume in the case of E15, I'd have to see the E15 cost at least 6% less
>>> than "pure" gasoline ($2.75 for pure gasoline, $2.59 for E15). I doubt
>>> you
>>> will see this large a delta. In fact, my experience is there is no delta
>>> at
>>> all. When stations in my area switched to E10, the prices didn't go down.
>>> In
>>> fact some stations selling pure gasoline were selling gasoline for less
>>> than
>>> other stations were selling E10. Now there are no station selling "pure"
>>> gasoline (at elast that I can find in my area).
>>
>> gasoline should be sold by energy content, not volume. just like the
>> natural gas that's piped into homes. as long as it's sold by volume,
>> there is the opportunity to sell "volumized" crap, just like bars will
>> sell watered-down drinks.
>
> In theroy this sounds like a good idea, but I am not sure how it would work
> in practice. Would you vary the price of a gallon of gas based on the energy
> content, or have some sort of caluclating pump that displays a price in
> BTU's per dollar?

btu's per dollar. and it's easy - just like when you buy the natural
gas that pipes into your home. it has a calorie content, and while it's
metered by the cubic foot, the price is based on the cubic feet x btu's.
low btu's per cubic foot means a lower total cost. for gasoline, that
would be btu's per gallon. the math should compensate for temperature
too so no more of this perennial "hot gas" lawsuit b.s.

you could wait and see how quickly ethanol would get abandoned then - it
would disappear overnight since there would suddenly be no profit in
volume, but cost savings in reducing the volume shipped.


>
> Al though I have noticed a general decline in my fuel economy, I don't see a
> lot of tank to tank variation. Years ago I tried figuring out if one brand
> of gas was better than another. For a months I'd only buy brand x and then
> switch to brand y for a month then back to brand X. I did this for a year. I
> could tell no difference in fuel economy between brands for the period.
> Recently I started comparing gas mileage for fuel purchased near my farm
> (most of which is trucked in from the Tidewater, Va area which has a BP
> Refinery) to gas purchased in the Raleigh area (most of which comes up a
> pipeline from god know where in the southwest). For a period of time I was
> convinced that I got better fuel economy using the gas from my farm. Now, I
> don't see that. It might have been a figment of my imagination, since at
> most the difference was on the order of 0.2 mpg.
>
> Ed
>
>>
>> there used to be a link on the api's website
>> http://api-ec.api.org/about//index.c...02001000000000
>> [now dead]
>>
>> where they flat-out admitted that ethanol was used as a "volumizer" -
>> their word, not mine.
>>
>> there is no legal minimum for energy content of gasoline - another
>> problem. on the one hand, if there were one, it would get lobbied so low
>> it would be a joke. on the other, it would draw a line in the sand and
>> stop this ridiculous rip-off.
>>
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum